Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

Remarks on Books:

G. V. Plekhanov.Fundamental Questions of Marxism.St. Ptsbrg, 1908

Written not earlier than May 1908.Published in part in 1933inLenin Miscellany XXV.Published in full for thefirst time.Published accordingto the original.

G. V. PLEKHANOV.FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS OFMARXISM

[23]... The idealists first convert thought intoan independent essence, independent of man(“subject for itself”), and then declare that in it,in this essence, the contradiction between beingand thought is resolved; precisely because it,essence independent of matter, possesses a separate,independent being. And the contradiction is infact resolved in it, for what is this essence afterall?Thought. And this thought exists—is—in-dependently of anything else. But this solution ofthe contradiction is a purely formal solution.It is attained only because,—as we have already

stated above—one of its elements is eliminated:that is,being independent of thought.Being proves

to be a simple property of thought, and when wesay that a given object exists, it means only thatit exists in thought....

[24]...To be does not mean to exist in thought.In this respect Feuerbach’s philosophy is far clearerthan the philosophy of Dietzgen.“The proof that

something exists,” Feuerbach remarks, “has noother meaning than that something existsnotin thought alone.”[1]

[28-29]...The materialist explanation of historywas primarily ofmethodologicalsignificance. Engels understood this per-

fectly when he wrote: “we need not so much bareresults as study (das Studium); results are nothingwithout the development leading up to them....”[2]

[29-30]...Generally speaking, one of the greatest

services rendered by Marx and Engels to material-ism is their elaboration of acorrect meth-od. Concentrating on the struggle against the

speculativeelement in Hegelian philo-sophy, Feuerbach did not appreciate itsdialec-ticalmethod and made little use of it. He says:“True dialectics is by no means a monologue ofa solitary thinker with himself; it is a dialoguebetween I and You.”[3]But, first, in Hegel, too,dialectics does not signify “a monologue of a solitarythinker with himself”; secondly, Feuerbach’s re-mark correctly defines thestarting-pointof philosophy, but not its meth-od. This deficiency was made good by Marxand Engels, who understood that it would bewrong, in combating Hegel’s speculative philos-ophy, to ignore its dialectics....

[31]...Many people confuse dialectics with thetheory of development, and it isin fact sucha theory. But dialectics differssubstantiallyfrom

the vulgar “theory” of evolution, which is whollyconstructed on the principle thatneithernature nor historymakesleaps,and thatall changes in the world

take placeonly gradually. Hegel

had already pointed out that the theory of develop-ment understood in this way is ridiculous anduntenable....

[33]...In general, the right todialectical

thoughtis confirmed by him[4]from thedialecticalpropertiesof being.Here too being determines thought....

[39]...Thus, the features of the geographicalenvironment determine the development of theproductive forces;the development of the produc-tive forces in turn determines the development ofeconomic relations and, then, all other socialrelations....

[42]...Each given stage of development of theproductive forces has its corresponding definitetype ofweapons, military art, and,finally, ofinternational—more exactly:inter-social, i.e., also, incidentally, inter-tribal—law.Hunting tribescannotcreate large-scale political organisations preciselybecause the low level of their productive forcescompels them, in the ancient Russianexpression,to wander separately, insmall social groups, in search of the means ofsubsistence....

[46-47]...According to Marx, the geographicalenvironment influences manthrough theproduction relations arising inthe given locality on the basisof the given productive forces,the primary condition for thedevelopment of which is thisenvironment’s features....

[65-66]...The character of the “economic struc-ture” and the direction in which it changes do notdepend on man’s will, but on the state of the pro-ductive forces and on the changes that arise inproduction relations and become necessary tosociety due to the continued development of theseforces. Engels explains this as follows: “Men maketheir history themselves, but not as yet witha collective will according to a collective plan oreven in a definite, delimited given society. Theiraspirations clash, and for that very reason allsuch societies are governed bynecessity,the complement and form of appearance of which

isaccident.” Here human activity itself isdetermined not as free, but asnecessary,i.e., asin accordance with law, i.e.,as being capable of becomingan object of scientific investi-

gation. Thus, historical materialism, whilenot ceasing to point out that circumstances arechanged by people, also gives us an opportunityfor the first time oflooking upon theprocess of this change from thestandpoint of science.And that iswhy we are fully entitled to say that the material-

ist explanation of history provides the necessaryprolegomena for any theory ofhuman society that desires tocome forward as science....

[68].. .In primitive society which knew no divi-sion into classes, man’s productive activitydirectlyinfluences his outlook on the worldand his aesthetic taste....

[81-82]...If we were to state briefly the viewof Marx and Engels on the relation between thenow famous “basis” and the no less famous

“superstructure,” the result would bethe following:

1) Thestate of the productiveforces;

2)Theeconomic relationsdeter-mined by it;

3) The socio -political systemwhichhas grown up on the economic “basis” in question;

4) Thepsychology of social manas determined in part directly by the economy andin part by the socio-political system which hasgrown up on it;

5)Different ideologiesreflectingthe properties of this psychology....

[98]...Let us take as an example our agrarianproblem as it stands today. To the intelligentConstitutional Democraticlandowner, “thecompulsory alienation of land” may seem to bemore or less, i.e., in inverse proportion to theamount of “fair compensation,” a sad historicalnecessity. But to thepeasant, who is eagerto come by “a bit of land,” it is only this “faircompensation” that will seem to be a more or lesssad necessity, while “compulsory alienation” isbound to appear to him to be an expression of his

free will and the most valuable guarantee of hisfreedom.

In saying this, we touch perhaps on the mostimportant point in the doctrine of freedom, a pointnot mentioned by Engels, of course, only becauseit is self-explanatory to one who has passed throughthe Hegelian school....

Feuerbach and Dietzgen.24[5]

[1]Werke. X, 187.—Lenin

[2]Nachlass, I, 477.—Lenin

[3]Werke, II, 345.—Lenin

[4]Engels—Ed.

[5]The reference is to page 24 of Plekhanov’s book
	  (seep. 403of this volume).—Ed.